Ori I don't know abut the illustration 'cuz it looks tedious. But evolution accounts for everything, even itself. The progression of that tiny but massive black spot of uniform composition from the Big Bang through the present is also evolution

If you could read it, that diagram shows the connectivity oof all the known sppecies by genetics. It identifies the "common ancestors" of the major groups.
As you can see, most species of the earth are really smaller than a pinhead.

0 Replies

maxdancona

1

Reply
Wed 28 Dec, 2016 09:00 am

@oristarA,

Science is based on hypotheses that are testable. Let's approach this thread in a scientific method. It seems like the fantastic claims you are making are far from scientific.

Let's use scientific reasoning to your own posts about science (which is not only useful, but amusing).

You claim that scientists provide "the strongest foundation for civilization". I question this claim.

Can you propose an scientific experiment to test this claim? Is there any data to suggests that you are correct?

I would also like you to provide a metric for what it means to be "Trumpized" (a metric is an important tool in science to test a hypothesis).

1) You are making bold unfounded assertions... and you are stating them as facts.
2) I am questioning your assertions and asking for a evidence based discussion.
3) You are responding with personal attacks.

I would think that your behavior is closer to "Trumpism" than mine. But without a metric we can't say for sure.

See? It is "provides", not "provide," which means the subject of the verb "provide" is science (single), not scientists (plural).

maxdancona wrote:

Can you propose an scientific experiment to test this claim? Is there any data to suggests that you are correct?

Second. So you know now that my claim is "science provides the strongest foundation for civilization." And you want me to design or propose an experiment to test it? I doubt any single experiment can do this job.

But countless scientists together have built the grand mansion of modern science, of modern civilization. So it is easy to find data of experiments to help in some way prove the correctness of the claim: (1)Louis Pasteur's(who saved countless lives by laying the foundation of microbiology); (2) Today's genome sequencing greatly facilitates the prevention and control of epidemic disease (1918 flu pandemic alone killed nearly 100 million people. and today the advancement of science has made the world a much much safer place).

So you know now that my claim is "science provides the strongest foundation for civilization." And you want me to design or propose an experiment to test it? I doubt any single experiment can do this job.

In that case it isn't a scientific claim. You are making a philosophical statement.

I can provide contradictory evidence to this claim... there have been long lasting, stable, prosperous civilizations with little understanding of science. Human civilizations flourished for thousands of years before Louis Pasteur was born.

But in any case, this isn't a scientific argument. Even when I disagree with you, I appreciate when you can make points to support your argument without resorting to personal attacks.

0 Replies

oristarA

2

Reply
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 08:12 pm

@maxdancona,

The metric for Trumpization is simply two words:

Magical Me

(For example)
Trump: I won popular vote.
(Observers):It's official: Clinton won the popular vote.
Trump: Because millions of people voted fraudulently.
(Observers):The evidence?
Trump: (My word itself is evidence. Even if I shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, my voters will still support me, Megical Me.)

Trumpizing is a carefree process of degenerating from American founding principles of truth and evidence.

I retrieved "In Science We Trust" from my memory, Max. But if I remembered correctly, it was from Nature (leading scientific journal in the world) or Scientific American (a Google serarch has confirmed it:

When I posted the thread with title "In Science We Trust: Evolution Creates Life" and the map (picture), you reacted with "it sounds like nonsense." Not to mention the fact that "In Science We Trust" is much appreciated by leading scientists, isn't evolution of life a well-established truth in science, Max? Such lack of respect for science is typically a Trump-style behavior. Your English is sufficient to distinguish "In Science We Trust" from "in Science we trust" in the background of "evolution" with that wonderful picture as evidence.

So who's unfounded? Who's making personal attacks? My evidence is there. Yet you shut your eyes and simply responded with "nonsense" without offering your evidence for discussion. Isn't this behavior of yours Trumpized? Isn't this behavior of yours unfounded? Isn't this behavior of yours personal attacks?

oristarA wrote:

In Science We Trust: Evolution Creates Life

maxdancona wrote:

I don't know exactly what trusting in Science (with a capital 'S') means.

But it sounds like nonsense.

oristarA wrote:

All words are capitalized together as a headline: In Science We Trust: Evolution Creates Life.

Scientists are science incarnate, science in the flesh, which provides the strongest foundation for civilization.

Your words show us that you are increasingly Trump-ized in your thinking pattern.

maxdancona wrote:

I would also like you to provide a metric for what it means to be "Trumpized" (a metric is an important tool in science to test a hypothesis).

1) You are making bold unfounded assertions... and you are stating them as facts.
2) I am questioning your assertions and asking for a evidence based discussion.
3) You are responding with personal attacks.

I would think that your behavior is closer to "Trumpism" than mine. But without a metric we can't say for sure.

I haven't made any claims myself. I am simply questioning the fantastic (i.e. unsupportable) claims that you are making. And you keep making more unsupportable claims with each post.

1. You have not provided a single reputable scientist that has said that evolution creates life.

2. You haven't responded to the evidence I provided that many civilizations have flourished without modern science in spite of your claim to the contrary.

3. You now claim that America is based core values of evidence and truth. I will point out that we still write "In God we Trust" on all of our money, and one of our core historical documents states that our inherent human rights come from our creator.

4. You claim that questioning nonsense claims with evidence and reason is "trump-like" behavior, in spite of the fact that you provide no example of Trump ever doing such a thing.

These scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Is it clear enough, Max? Are they reputable? Will you still insist that I should list the name of a single reputable scientist?

Well, to satisfy our Max's peculiar taste, here is a list of 72 Nobel laureates who support evolutionary science or uphold the notion - "Evolution creates life", rejecting that God created life (it is fromEdwards v. Aguillard:
U.S. Supreme Court Decision):

Quote:

INTEREST OF AMICI CURAE

Amici curiae are individual scientists, state academies of science, and other scientific organizations. Each of the 72 individual amici has received the Nobel Prize in Physics[1], in Chemistry[2], or in Physiology or Medicine[3].

sorry but youre wrong. Chemical "evolution" is not recognized as a pre-biotic concept.
Its just a term of convenience.
Creation and EVolution describe two totally different realms of biology.
You my wish to continue some kind of argument but Im on pretty good ground here.

BTW, Edwards v Aguillrd was a USSC case that arose from teaching Creationism as a subject in the biology curriculum of Louisiana Public Schools.
"Scientific Creationism" had described itself as embodying both the
1Creation of Life on earth
2The subsequent arrival of different species through time.

Todays science does not accept the term. If you wih to continue some argument you have to realize that you are adopting terminology from both a religion based world-view mixed in with a bit of what science is about. Your playing both ides of the court.
SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM tried to envelop both concepts. That dont make it right because the entire concept of Scientific Creationism was found to be unconstitutional by a wide majority of the USSC Justices who opined.

0 Replies

maxdancona

2

Reply
Tue 3 Jan, 2017 11:52 am

@oristarA,

You haven't offered me any evidence Oristar. You just keep making more and more unfounded claims. And now you are making them loudly.

Let's add to the list

1. You now claim "Life is either created by God, or created by evolution." This is clearly untrue (even forgetting the fact that you haven't supported your claim that evolution creates life). There are lots of possible options other than the two you provide. You can have a God that uses evolution. Or you could have a mechanism that doesn't have either God or evolution... something else maybe.

2. You claim that "almost all" scientists reject God. Your own link says that the number is 72% of scientists. Is 72% really "almost all"?

3. You haven't provided a single link to a scientist who says that evolution creates life. Scientists say that evolution explains the development of species from earlier lifeforms. But I have yet to see the claim that "evolution creates life".